tv [untitled] November 23, 2012 12:00pm-12:30pm PST
we feel this should be a no-brainer here today and we're sorry we had to be here and sit on the hard benches so long. we're here because we care about this and these really are two different projects. we think the demonstration of support here from many different community groups from pacific to san mateo county to san francisco should indicate to the supervisors the breadth of the port for this resolution and really i think it indicates a bad faith on the part of the department of rec and park to come forward now and delay this matter even further. this has been on the agenda for a long time. without any controversy and we hope you would vote in support of this resolution and move it forward. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. melissa collins from the sierra club. i support the resolution to remove the golf course from the natural area planning management plan. they are two different projects
and should be analyzed separately. there are a number of delays and we urge you to vote on this next week. >> thank you. next speaker. if there is anyone else that would like to speak, if you would line up on the side of the room that would be helpful. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. -- wiener and mar. my name is laura cleveland, i'm a richmond district resident. i'm here to support a voice in support of wildlife. i'm requesting you vote in favor of this proposed resolution. while i'm here for wildlife, the proposed resolution would not be commitment for or against the continuation of sharp park as a golf course. it would ensure a fair and targeted environmental review of the subject wetland/golf course. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. local law student interested in environmental law and avid golfer. i support this resolution because it rejects legitimate attempts to [speaker not understood].
given the information forcing requirements of ceqa, this resolution should be passed. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. if there's anyone else that would like to speak, please come forward. supervisors, my name is al markel. i've lived in san francisco all my life and i played golf a good part of it. i urge you to -- a no vote on this resolution. [speaker not understood]. all this does is waste more time and money. so, let's get on with it. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is victor car michael and i live in pacifica, california. my position is it makes no sense at all to merge these two studies. they are completely different entities. the sharp park redevelopment
should be separated for two specific reasons. one is the golf course within the sharp park area is located right on top of a [speaker not understood] area. that complicates the e-i-r a great deal. [speaker not understood] prevents reclaiming the zone. e-i-r involved in studying the sharp park area, it needs to have a specific consideration. secondly, and of course, we all know that the sharp park area contains two endangered species. to merge these two studies together makes no sense at all. please, i urge you, urge the city council to please separate these two issues and i support the resolution. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. supervisors, good afternoon. i'm richard harris. i'm with the san francisco
public golf alliance and i'm speaking on a procedural point rather than substance. we were this morning in a phone call with supervisor olague's staff. i was told that supervisor olague was asking for -- that her matter be not heard today and that it would be heard at some sometime in the future. the public here would not happen. i wrote an e-mail to her and to supervisor mar's legislative aide, rick pavalatos. rick confirmed in an e-mail to me that the public hearing would not proceed today. no public hearing today.
>> mr. harris, because it's agendized, we have to listen to public comment. so, that doesn't make any sense to me, but that's what was said by my staff. i have it in an e-mail. the matter will not be heard today is what your staff told me. >> we're not taking action, but we're obligated to hold a public hearing because it was noticed. i have many people who were lined up to come in and present written testimony. i had written testimony to prepare -- to present. and i called them and told them not to come because we had been told by supervisor olague whose matter it is and by your staff
that the public hearing -- >> we are not acting on it today. if you could continue your public comment. that's the point. that at such time that it is considered at a future, i just want that confirmation from you that public comment will be allowed when you have it continued. >> yes, we will have public comment when it's continued probably to december 3rd, but that's going to be the motion after public comment is over. thank you very much. hi, my name is sally stevens. i'm the chair of sf dog. we support active recreational uses and adamantly oppose any move to give sharp park to [speaker not understood]. it is suing san francisco to try to force us to close the sharp park golf course and give it to the gg & a.
the lawsuit is in the courts right now, but preliminary [speaker not understood]. this resolution will help their lawsuit. a cynical point by them to get you supervisors to do what they don't seem able to get the courts to do, to push their extremist plan to close sharp park golf course and give it to the [speaker not understood]. you shouldn't make it easier for people suing the city to win their lawsuit. stay out of it and vote no. you should not assert pressure on planning while an e-i-r is being developed. that is the intent to change the results of the nap e-i-r. don interfere and vote no on this resolution. the e-i-r in question is supposed to be for the natural area management plan, not just parts of it. you should not allow extremists with a stake in this to pick and choose which parts of the overall nap plan are considered in the e-i-r. if it is to have any real meaning it is to look at all,
not just some aspects. it should not be completed if it does not include sharp park plan. it will be wasted. please vote no on this. please do not let extremists with an agenda and lawsuit use you the supervisors to do their dirty work for them. don't let them fool you into giving them what have not been able to get from the people, from rpd, from the mayor or from the courts. please ask supervisor olague to pull this resolution so no one ever has to see it again. thank you. >> is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak? public comment is closed. so, if there are no comments, we have a request. supervisor wiener? >> i understand that supervisor olague would like to have this continued to monday, december 3rd, two weeks, and i would be supportive of doing that. however, before we act on this
resolution, i think it's important that we receive advice from the city attorney's office and i'm requesting that. there are a lot of issues here. there is the pending litigation that was just referred to. there is the issue of the fact we're in the middle of the e-i-r. pulling apart the e-i-r in the middle of the proceeding and what the ceqa impacts are. i wouldn't feel comfortable proceeding waynn or the other until we receive -- make a request of the city attorney and i'm requesting of the chair to keep that in mind as our request because i think we would all benefit from having advice from the city attorney's office. >> and mr. givener, also, is this a binding resolution or nonbinding one? those are the questions i would like answered as well. thank you. >> absolutely, we can pass all
those questions to the committee. >> great, thank you. there is a motion to continue -- there is a motion to continue until december 3rd at the request of supervisor olague. and my hope is that she shows up for that meeting or her staff are here so that -- and also rec and park staff as well so we can have a thorough dialogue and discussion on this item. so, without objection, we're going to continue this until december 3rd. thank you. thank you everyone for showing up. mr. evans, is there any other business before us? >> there is one more. >> thank you, mr. chair. item 6 is a hearing on municipal transportation agency's [speaker not understood] as a way to produce better taxi service. >> supervisor wiener is the sponsor. >> thank you. i move to continue one week. >> thank you. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. so, let's continue this item
welcome to the tuesday, november 20th, 2012 meeting of the san francisco county transportation authority. my name is david campos and i am the chair of the commission, the authority. we are joined by the clerk of the authority, erika cheng, and we would like to thank the following members of sfgtv staff for covering the meeting today. nona and jessie. madam clerk, if you can please call item 1 roll call. >> commissioner avalos? >> present. >> [speaker not understood]. cohen present. elsbernd present. farrell present. kim absent. mar absent. olague present. wiener present. we have a quorum. >> great, thank you very much. if you can now call item number 2. >> item number 2, approval of minutes of the october 23, 2012
meeting, that is an action item. >> before we take action on this item i'd like to open it up for any member of the public who would like to speak on item 2, please come forward. you each have three minutes. mr. chair, i was reading the minutes and normally i don't comment on the minutes. but when we comment on something that is critical and important and if just a few sentences are put in the minutes, maybe that's the style of doing it. but i think it's really important when you're talking about the third street light rail, the first street starting at fourth and king and ending in the middle of visitacion valley, that that connection from visitacion valley to balboa station is very critical in having a system that really works. so, again and again, i take
people on the third street light rail and we stop at visitacion valley, there isn't a town there, there isn't anything there. and i know one of the supervisors who represents district 11 is pushing for it, but there seems to be no concerted effort to listen to his pleas. but i tell you it's high time that we in the minutes, when somebody says something about that thing it reflects -- it reflects [speaker not understood] that there should be some short term and long-term goals regarding connecting balboa station to visitacion valley. and then bringing that all the way to fourth and king. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we can take our roll call on this. [roll call]
minutes passed. >> item passes, thank you. if you can now call item number 3. >> item number 3, chair's report, this is an information item. >> thank you very much. i have some brief remarks today. as you know, we are about to enter the holiday season and i want to begin by wishing everyone a happy thanksgiving and hopefully everyone here and those who are watching will be able to spend some time with family. i do want to thank our staff at the sf county transportation authority for all the work that they have done this year. i think that we have accomplished a lot and i look forward to having a more in-depth discussion about some
of those accomplishmentses at our next meeting. as you know, we had an election on november 6 and we had some interesting developments in terms of revenue, at least, at the state level we saw some relief being brought by prop 30. we also saw a couple of transportation measures that failed in alameda county and in los angeles, and i think that as we are analyzing the reasons for those results, it's important for us here in san francisco to have a better understanding of why perhaps that happened as we think about our own transportation needs going forward. of course, the most significant development at the federal level was the reelection of president obama. and i think that what that means for transportation, not only in the state of california, but nationwide, is pretty significant including, of course, what it does to high-speed rail. and the president has been a very strong supporter of that and that's something that we have been pushing for here in
california and we want to make sure that we continue our efforts. but that certainly is a positive development on that -- on that front. as we move forward to the next year, one of the things that i'd like to ask my colleagues is to simply think about some of the priorities that we should have as a body, not only priorities in terms of the individual projects or needs that each one of our districts has, but also collectively the priorities for the city. i know that we have seen a great deal of cooperation between the county transportation authority and the sfmta and i think that it's important for us to continue those efforts. and one of the things that i wanted to see next year is to -- and focus more on how we improve some of the coordination that is taking place among the various city agencies, especially around some of the major projects. i thought, you know, in the last few months we have seen exactly how that coordination,
that cooperation has worked well. we also have seen examples of how it hasn't. and, so, to the extent that what we as a funding agency can play a role in facilitating and enhancing that cooperation i would like to see that. and that's one of the items i'd like to have at a future meeting, to have a more in-depth discussion and a conversation, really, with all the different agencies that work with the county transportation authority about how we can improve that level of cooperation and corroboration. i think it will lead to greater efficiencies in how some of these projects are delivered. so, that's it unless you have any questions. i will open it up to public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak on item 3, please come forward. mr. chair, i like your comments. what i want to focus on are the youth that we have here in san francisco. with the mtc, the san francisco
county transportation authority, the mta, together with the board of supervisors and especially this body, if we focus on our youth and hug them as much as we can to meet their transportation needs. * help them and one of the ways we can do that is by having a lively discussion as to how our monies are spent and have a broader view. we seem to be more focused on the operations and the machines rather than the living and the human beings who are [speaker not understood]. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk, if you can please doll item number 4? >> executive director's report, this is an information item. >> now we will curran it over to our executive director. mr. moskovich, i want to thank you and your staff as we near the end of the calendar year
for all the work that has been done this calendar year. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my report was a couple of additional handouts as well. i'm only going to focus on five of the items in the report in the interest of time. the first thing i'd like to comment on is that we have on the van ness vip project, bus rapid transit project, we've submitted the revised exception fact sheets to caltrans. as you know, caltrans has jurisdiction over the design on van ness avenue because it is a state route. and we are working very closely with the mta to make sure that we have a really top notch design for this bus rapid transit route in san francisco, the first fully featured vrt project to come through, probably in the north american continent of this kind.
and we anticipate getting an approval from caltrans in early january. the publishing of the final eirs is now slated for february and that should allow us to bring the certification actually into this board on both the federal and the state documents by march 2013. in addition to that, i want to point out that we spent the last month and a half or so negotiating with mta on a transition plan. as you may recall, the plan all along has been for the authority to clear the project environmentally and then turn it over to the mta to finalize design and get it built. and that moment has come and i'm very pleased to report that we have reached agreement. i signed the transition plan document a couple days ago and, so, we are on schedule with
that and will be a further action that will take place with an updated memorandum of the agreement between the two agencies which will come to you [speaker not understood] in december and that will memorialize at the policy level what we have already agreed to at the staff level. so, i'm really delighted about that and very confident that we're moving forward with the van ness vrt project in a most positive way. there are people who are interested in looking at the details of where the project is can go to www.van ness vip, all one word, dot-org. the bayview [speaker not understood] study has continued to advance as well as community outreach related to that plan. in collaboration with the department of public health and their bayview zone initiative,
the next meeting -- there was a meeting of the community, working group, earlier this month. and the next one will be on december 11 at 10:00 a.m. at the bayview ymca which is located at 1601 lane street. the san francisco transportation plan, which as you know is our long-range planning document for favors thaition in the city 30erctiontion -- 30-year document under development. and as you know, we had an online survey the last month and a half or so that provided essentially a budget gain for people to provide their input on how to prioritize the over $3 billion in discretionary funds that will be available over the life of the plan for transportation priorities in the city.
we have tremendous -- response of over 600 people took part in the game online and provided the detailed answers. those, of course, are going to be used in the process of refining the list of projects and programs that will be proposed for the next stages of the plan. also in response to agency comments, we have integrated pedestrian bicycle and travel management programs into the performance evaluation so that we have more complete picture. the results along with input received in the course of the public outreach will be used to inform [speaker not understood]. the next meeting of the advisory committee for the san francisco transportation plan is on november 28 at 6:00 p.m. at the authority's offices. 14 55 market street, second floor.
the target for completion of the plan is summer of 2013. and will go entirely with the adoption of the regional transportation plan. in connection with that online to and for public input, got submitted to a national competition that was organized by the transportation research board, which is the branch of the national academy of scienceses that deals with transportation nationwide. and we actually won among four national initiatives as one of the best public outreach tools in the country. so, we're going to be receiving a recognition for that at the january meeting of the transportation research board. and i want to congratulate my staff, our deputy for planning and all the people that participated in the process of putting that together, our
deputy for technology services as well, elizabeth. it really is a great opportunity to bring people closer and make it real for them how we make decisions in terms of transportation priorities. and my final item is about the [speaker not understood] bay area grant. we closed the project september 27 for [speaker not understood] the program over the next four years. on october 26, a month later we received 12 applications for a total of $62.6 million worth of projects. so, almost twice as much money as we have. and we set up a process for prioritizing those projects and those funds. it's a two-step process. in the first step we prioritize
an initial list. we provide them with some money to do further development on the projects. then we bring them back a few months later so that we can evaluate how those project sponsors have refined the projects and sharpened their pencils to make them fit within the money that's available. that first phase, that first set of priorities in draft form is on your desks in the form of a matrix with very, very small font. it's not a reading exercise. it's an attempt to make it all fit in a small amount of real estate. the first page is the actual list of projects. the second page is the priority list. this is a draft -- this is [speaker not understood] committee structure, the committee in december for discussion and hopefully a blessing and then we'll come back to the board in december for approval.
and, again, that's not set. the projects are going to be funded. it simply sets the projects that are prioritized so that we can give the sponsors a little bit of help further developing the design and refining the scope of the projects and the cost so that we can make them fit in the program. it's a novel way of prioritizing projects. there are more than 30 prioritization criteria that come from mtc and what the board adopted a few months ago and i'm looking forward to the results of this. i will point out that this program is a really important way to support the idea of complete streets. this is about the regional transportation funding agency and the authority putting together a set of projects that can set the pace for how we do well integrated projects and our complete streets projects that consider all the forms of transportation that can improve
mobility in the city. this isn't just street resurfacing or just bicycle or just transit. this is about integrating, coming up with a [speaker not understood] set of projects. that is really all. -- i wanted to highlight. i wanted to answer questions on those items. that concludes my report. i do want to echo the chair's best wishes for all of you for a wonderful thanksgiving and i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner avalos. >> thank you, chair campos. just a question on the application for one bay area grab. are we looking to have like multiple applications that are going to be above $35 million which is going to be available for obag, or are we actually going to have a packet that adds up to $35 million? i'm concerned that when we get